Clear the Way

Why does the electorate prefer personality over issues and policies? In the end, it seems to be that voting is based on 'gut feeling.' And research has backed me up on my assumption. In an article in WebMD last month, it was reported that our votes are swayed by our feelings. The suggestion was made that candidates vying for votes would be wise to tap into our emotions and not just drone on about the issues and their policies.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and other presidential hopefuls will be better off tugging on our heart strings, said Drew Westen, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and psychology at Emory University in Atlanta and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

When candidates assume that voters make their decisions based solely on the issues, they lose, Westen said. "Feelings toward the parties and their principles account for 80 percent of votes," he said at the annual meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association in New York City.

To prove the theory, Westen and colleagues conducted a study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans on the brains of staunch Democrats and staunch Republicans. The MRIs showed that the emotional areas of participants' brains lit up when they read articles suggesting their favored politician was dishonest.

What's more, there was a decrease in activity in the parts of the brain that deal with reasoning when they read the information. Even more striking, Westen said, was that all participants appeared to find ways of ignoring this negative information, holding on to their previous beliefs. When their emotion eventually overcame the reasoning, it stimulated the brain's reward system -- similar to what happens to drug addicts when they get their fix.

This is why speaking with emotion matters, he said. "It's about making what is not conscious become conscious by activating networks in the brain." Networks are basically bundles of thoughts, feelings, images, and ideas that have become connected over time and can be used to evoke emotions -- and votes.

Westen, a self-proclaimed card-carrying Democrat, says the GOP is much better at activating our emotions, and thus garnering votes, than Democrats. "Republicans say 'this is what I stand for' and Democrats hide their values in their policies," he said. The Republicans shine by using emotionally evocative phrases such as 'the war on terror,' which gets at the voters feelings of safety and security.

"When the other side is running on a relentless war against terror, if you are going to run on prescription drugs, those drugs better be [the anti-anxiety drug] Xanax or you are going to lose," he said.

There are other examples of how the Democrats fail to reach voters. Take universal health care, he said. Democrats talk about the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). "You couldn't develop a worse abstraction for something that is this important," he said. "Don't take acronyms out in the public [because] it's very difficult to establish a reaction to an acronym. Instead, say something like 'I believe every family deserves a family doctor,' which will surely resonate more."

The environment is another example. "If you want to find a more bland, abstract word to describe the world we live in, you couldn't do it," he said. "It is very difficult to establish emotional associations to such abstract terms. Instead, say 'we must act now to save the planet for our children and grandchildren.'

"You don't have to dumb things down, you simply have to get [voters] to feel what you feel," Westen says.

Politicians need to tell voters who they are and what they stand for, he said. "A laundry list of issues is not a story."

So here’s the situation for me: Hillary and Barack have relatively similar positions on most of the issues. But Hillary comes across as a policy wonk who will wield her machete through the thicket of issues, and try to come up with solutions: 1,2,3. But will anyone buy into them? Can she build a consensus to make sure her policies become law? I am not at all convinced that she can. Thus, even though she may well have a better command of the issues, it truly won’t matter. She had command of health issues when she tried to create a health plan in Bill’s administration. It did not make any difference. She did not build a consensus – in fact, I don’t know if she even saw it was necessary. She knew she was right (and she was!) but it did not matter. She lost. We are suffering as a country from that lost opportunity.

Barack has an emotional appeal that touches me in my heart. He makes me cry, he makes me smile, he reaches to the core of me. And so I believe him when he says he is for “change” even though I don’t quite know what he means by that. It doesn’t matter. I’m emotionally ready for it, whatever “it” is. I have watched people in the audience when he speaks. They are mesmerized. I watch a gray haired white woman the other night. She was standing behind him as he spoke on a large stage. She was crying with what could only be described as joy. She was so overcome, a black woman next to her turned and gave her a hug. They smiled at each other. THAT’s the heart of the election for me – that people have a sense of possibility. So as the policy wonks that Barack selects work on legislation people will be ready to follow. And so when he is ready to propose a health care plan, people will be there for him and support it. There has to be an emotional commitment first – otherwise it just won’t happen. I think of the mustard seed story in the New Testament – plant mustard seeds, and the ones that are put in prepared soil will grow. The ones that are thrown on the hard, cold ground will not grow, even though they are similar to the others. I see Hillary, unfortunately, as putting seeds on the hard ground. The soil has to be prepared first, and Barack will do that.

I think back to the March on Washington in 1963. That emotional day, of which I was a part, set the stage for the very difficult legislative follow-up and the passing of the Civil Rights Act. I don’t think you could have one without the other. No Civil Rights Act without the emotional experience of that March first.

Barack is the guy who is saying “Clear the Way” we are coming, change is going to happen. It will be up to you and me to help him define what that change is. Do you think Hillary would listen to us? I think she thinks she already knows the answers, and so she will march on and those who agree with her policy positions will follow – but how about all those who aren’t sure or need a bit more convincing. They will sit there….

This choice of mine has nothing to do with gender, it has all to do with emotional resonance. And Barack resonates with me.